Redskins Locker Room

Why would we bring a Safety who can't do a good job in coverage? There's a reason why Lynch wasn't practicing with the Nickel and Dime packages, because he has lost a step and can't cover. The only way we could justify bringing him, is if he would be willing to play LB (like what Philly was trying to do with Michael Lewis). Then again, if you want a LB, you can go after Takeo Spikes or Godfrey.

Ok, now that I got that out of my system it's time to argue. The stigma that Reed Doughty is not a starter in this league is killing me and the view that we need to replace him after he proved himself to the point of earning a starting job this year is obsurd.

Now before I get further into this argument let me say that I think the anxiousness to replace Doughty with a bigger name is based, for a good amount of people, on lossing a player like Sean Taylor. I think people got use to the idea of having two big name safetys and they want that back. Thats why every available safety that pops up gets a strong push from "lobbyist" here on the Warpath. Other people just want the Redskins to have better Madden players so they can use them when the game comes out.

With that said, the last time we ignored a productive player on our roster in favor of a big name we signed Adam Archuletta and let Ryan Clark go to the Steelers. Afterwards people were begging for Ryan Clark to come back in the months leading up to the draft.

I don't know the KC Joyner metrics on how Reed played last year but we do have numbers such as tackles and such that we can match up with endorsements from the coaching staff. First of all his performance at SS when he started looks identical in terms of numbers when compared to Landry's time at SS and as I have stated before, if Doughty is as good as a rookie (first 8 or so games) Laron Landry then awesome.

On top of that Doughty was cited by Cooley as the hardest working player this offseason and by Cooleys own admission he see's Doughty having a breakout year. Now does this mean it will happen, not necessarily (see JP Losman), but SS is a lot easier to play then QB and Doughty performed well at SS last year. If someone can prove otherwise please let me know as I only have numbers, endorsements, and overall defensive performance to go on at this point so if someone has anything else to counter this then let me know.

However everyone's favorite new Redskin Stuart Schwiegert has yet to convince Blache that a Landry-Schweigert combo is better then a Landry-Doughty combo. And untill we see otherwise I am going to continue to endorse Doughty as the starting SS for 2008. He's at least earned that.

I wonder how many times we are going to have to go through this as the mass of aging veterans start getting released during the pre-season?

Let's try and follow some simple guidelines.

1. If the player is old as dirt don't bother.
2. If the player is washed up don't bother.
3. If the player doesn't address and area of need like LB don't bother.

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!
First the guy is not washed up. Second he is a hard hitting Strong Safety. Third he would be a short term fix. Fourth He is a proven veteran (unlike Doughty) and he frees up Landry to make plays in the secondary. I would definitley sign him to a 1-2 year deal

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!
First the guy is not washed up. Second he is a hard hitting Strong Safety. Third he would be a short term fix. Fourth He is a proven veteran (unlike Doughty) and he frees up Landry to make plays in the secondary. I would definitley sign him to a 1-2 year deal

The last time we signed a Safety who can't cover (Archuleta), it didn't worked out so well for the team. If we're going to sign a veteran, it should be at the LB position.

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!
First the guy is not washed up. Second he is a hard hitting Strong Safety. Third he would be a short term fix. Fourth He is a proven veteran (unlike Doughty) and he frees up Landry to make plays in the secondary. I would definitley sign him to a 1-2 year deal

The general consensus (I believe) is that Archuleta was a colossal failure for us (both from a personnnel management decision, and from a performance aspect) and yet what you're basically saying is you want someone who just last year recreated the same year Archuleta suffered through with the Redskins two years ago...and Lynch is six years older than Archuleta.

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

John Lynch 3+ years ago, but not now. We have greater needs at the LB position, and it would not be wise to spend our money on someone like Lynch. Besides, Lynch is most likely not coming back to the NFL.

I don't think we should get him. If he was younger I might want him but we need to give
Doughty a chance. And with Horton's performance last night that gives us a little bit of depth. So from me it's a know.

I say yes if for the vet minnimum. Doughty tackled well early on but missed horribly on the Clark move towards the sideline (IND FG) and afterwards. Schweigert looked slow to react in what looked like a IND-flooded cover-2 zone which he gave up a TD. Horton may be given a shot with the starting D if this continues.

I say yes if for the vet minnimum. Doughty tackled well early on but missed horribly on the Clark move towards the sideline (IND FG) and afterwards. Schweigert looked slow to react in what looked like a IND-flooded cover-2 zone which he gave up a TD. Horton may be given a shot with the starting D if this continues.

I agree. The more I see Horton the more I like him. Even though it is 1 game. He showed speed and hitting ability but I am worried about his coverage ability. With that I wouldn't be surprised if he started this year or next, but I will wait until preseason is over to say if he should start or not.